alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020215EN.01003601.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Rot Front v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН)

(Case T-63/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark РОШЕН - Earlier international figurative mark РОМАШКИ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1872/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Rot Front and Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1872/2018-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1872/2018-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Rot Front OAO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Rot Front OAO;

| 3. | Orders Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1920

ELVIS DAVID LEWIS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Ari Nazarov, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Elvis David Lewis, a native and citizen of Grenada,

seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to grant

Lewis’s third motion to reconsider. We do not have jurisdiction

to review the Board’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte

power to grant relief. See Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397,

400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the petition for

review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DISMISSED
#### George T. White et al., Appellants, v Town of Kent et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from water contamination, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 19,1983, which, upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them for nonjoinder of the State of New York as a necessary party, dismissed the complaint as against all defendants “without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims”.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. *(See, Baisley v Town of Kent,*111 AD2d 299.) Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


         We have  issued  our  reports  dated  March 9, 2006,  accompanying  the
consolidated   financial   statements   and   management's   assessment  of  the
effectiveness  of internal control in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oak Hill
Financial,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Oak
Hill Financial,  Inc. on Forms S-8, File Nos. 333-116863,  333-45690,  333-81167
and 333-27481.


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Cincinnati, Ohio
March 15, 2006



                                       69
# C_2019399EN.01006901.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/69

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)

(Case T-142/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 399/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. L. Capostagno and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 927/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15314]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-653-000.
    Applicants: Ovintiv Marketing Inc., Kiwetinohk Marketing US Corp.
    Description: Joint Petition of Ovintiv Marketing Inc. and 
Kiwetinohk Marketing US Corp. for Extension of Temporary and Limited 
Waivers.
    Filed Date: 7/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210712-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-963-000.
    Applicants: Effingham County Power, LLC, Oglethorpe Power 
Corporation (An Electric Membership Corporation).
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Capacity 
Release Regulations, et al. of Effingham County Power, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210712-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15314 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### In the Matter of Richard McAllan et al., Respondents-Appellants, v City of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Myers, J.), entered on November 3, 1983, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Allen Myers, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
Order entered March 25 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01333 - CV IN RE BRUCE BISHOP, Relator O riginal Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dall as County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 18 - 14298



### O RDER Before the Court En Banc Before the Court is real party in interest’s March 8, 2019 motion for en banc reconsideration. We request that relator file a response to the motion for en banc reconsider ation by April 9, 2019

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**823 KA 10-00381**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND GREEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DAVID SANCHEZ, ALSO KNOWN AS DAVID CANFIELD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered January 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HEALTHDYNE
INFORMATION ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE HEALTHDYNE INFORMATION ENTERPRISES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,732
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                       407
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,698
<PP&E>                                           2,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,376
<BONDS>                                            260
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,008
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,552
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   242
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020019EN.01003201.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 29 October 2019 — XX v Tartu Vangla

(Case C-795/19)

(2020/C 19/32)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: Tartu Vangla

Question referred

Should Article 2(2), read in combination with Article 4(1), of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which provide that impaired hearing below the prescribed standard constitutes an absolute impediment to work as a prison officer and that the use of corrective aids to assess compliance with the requirements is not permitted?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21

- 0313 ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
his pro se civil complaint. 1 The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. “Article III of the Unit ed States Constitution limits the judicial power to deciding ‘Cases and Controversies.’” In re Navy Chaplaincy , 534 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2), cert. denied , 556 U.S. 1167 (2009). “ One element of the case

- or - contro versy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Comm. on Judiciary of U .S. House of Representatives v. McGahn , 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A party has standing for purposes of Article III if he has “ (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 763 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992))

.

1 Because Williams is the only plaintiff who submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis and because Williams is not authorized to represent other parties , the Court proceeds as if he is the sole plaintiff. 2/4/2021Plaintiff’s suit arises from the events o f January 6, 202 1 , in Washington, D.C., including

the former President’s speech allegedly incit ing a n attack on the United States Capitol. According to P laintiff, the former President ’s speech allegedly contained an implicit promise to pardon the rioters . He further alleges that his promise violate d the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United Sta tes Constitution. In addition to monetary and punitive damages,
P laintiff demands a court order suspending “Article II[,] Section 2[,] Clause 1 of the Constitution” on the ground that the pardon power is “unconstitutional[] . . . on its face” and
“maintai n[s] . . . violence.” Dkt. 1 at 10. Missing from the complaint are any factual allegations establish ing that plaintiff
sustained (or is likely to sustain) an injury resulting from the former President’s actions or any other event occurring on January 6, 2021. “[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government

— claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper applicat ion of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large

— does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan , 504 U.S. at 573

- 74

. Because plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to establish standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his cl a ims

. T he complaint must therefore be dismissed. A separate order will issue

.

/s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: Fe bruary 4, 2021
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50038

Summary Calendar

ROGELIO ROSAS,JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-97-CV-402)

October 2, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rogelio M. Rosas, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his complaint for judicial

review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security which denied his

claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Rosas contends that the

Administrative Law Judge erred in determining that his medical condition does not

significantly interfere with his daily activities. He further contends that the ALJ

posed an inadequate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. Rosas did not
 

1 Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 

2 Rosas v. Callahan, No. SA-97-CA-0402 (W.D.Tex. October 14, 1997 and

November 24, 1997).

2

raise these issues in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the

district court did not engage in a de novo review. We must, therefore, review these

contentions for plain error.1

Our review of the record and the briefs of the parties discloses no error, plain

or otherwise, and for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court we

now AFFIRM.2
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
  Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
  2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the "Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of
  New Jersey Mining Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                       
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.

Date: November 9, 2004

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH 
  Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer & Director

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 9, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128641 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. THOMAS J. PASSAR O and HOWARD H. Stephen J. Markman, KAHNE, Justices Plaintiff-Appellees,

v SC: 128641 COA: 257553 Berrien CC: 2003-003281-CZ TAGLIA, FETTE, DUMKE & WHITE, P.C., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to app eal the February 23, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

t1102 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 9, 2005

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 19 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Nicholas Financial,
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|              |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|June 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Ralph T. Finkenbrink                         
|              |  |  |  | Ralph T. Finkenbrink                             
|              |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019372EN.01001001.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/10

---

Appeal brought on 4 June 2019 by Mr Kurt Hesse against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-910/16 and T-911/16, Kurt Hesse and Wedl & Hofmann GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-426/19 P)

(2019/C 372/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kurt Hesse (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 24 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---